Last month, former U.S. President Donald Trump accepted an “Environmentalist” award and a “Freedom of Speech” trophy. FIFA President Gianni Infantino presented him with the first FIFA “peace prize”. This honor has sparked talk of Trump’s tactics in diplomacy and pursuit of peace. Yet many experts denounce his professed approach as largely transactional in nature, and even insincere.
The Trump administration’s approach to international negotiations has often been described as zero-sum and contractual. So critics are charging that his approach focuses more on the allure of dealmaking than the hard work of peacemaking. That latter distinction is absolutely critical, as recently underscored by foreign policy expert Arthur Boutellis in his words,
“Yet there is a fundamental difference between dealmaking and peacemaking. In the business world, dealmaking focuses on bargaining between positions. It is inherently transactional, zero-sum and contractual: one party transfers ownership to another in exchange for payment.”
Even the most experienced negotiators have argued that Trump’s approach has rendered him one of the least trustworthy negotiators. Moreover, his penchant for performative gestures often overshadows more serious substantial diplomatic efforts. He has purged even the most famous peacemaker, going so far as to take credit for resolving the generations old crisis between India and Pakistan. Yet experts are still doubtful about his successes.
Trump’s administration was justly lambasted for trying to pressure Ukraine into rewarding Russia after its own illegal international aggression. These actions have led many to question just how serious Trump is about his peace initiatives. Are they really aimed at promoting long-term stability, or are they simply another vehicle to further his own personal brand.
Trump’s accomplishments in Gaza, if they can be called such, have all been deemed failures, as conditions for Palestinians continue to worsen. His stated victories on the world stage usually come without much external validation, so they’re widely written off even among friendly observers as questionable boasts.
Even with all these criticisms, the Trump administration went all-in on hubris by renaming the United States Institute of Peace after himself. This leap proves once again how dangerous his propensity to mix his own branding with diplomatic mission is.
And indeed, throughout the region and beyond, Trump’s approach runs counter to the heavy lifting that is often required of any mediated peace process. This tendency for superficial wins over systemic change is worrying not only for global leaders but for foreign policy professionals.